1
The Challenge of Ballot Measures to Affirmative Procurement Programs June 5, 2008 Tim Lohrentz Program Manager Inclusive Business Initiative Insight Center for Community Economic Development

2
The Challenge of Ballot Measures to Affirmative Procurement ProgramsJune 5, 2008Page No. 2 Insight Center for Community Economic Development The Insight Center for Community Economic Development, formerly the National Economic Development and Law Center (NEDLC), is a national research, consulting and legal organization dedicated to building economic health in vulnerable communities. The Insight Center is based in Oakland, California, and is 39 years old. The Insight Center's multidisciplinary approach utilizes a wide array of community economic development strategies including industry-focused workforce development, individual and community asset building, establishing the link between early care and education and economic development, and advocating for the adoption of the Self-Sufficiency Standard as a measurement of wage adequacy and an alternative to the Federal Poverty Line.

3
The Challenge of Ballot Measures to Affirmative Procurement ProgramsJune 5, 2008Page No. 3 Summary The 50-state Policy Trend in Affirmative Procurement Impact of Proposition 209 and Initiative 200 on Self-Employment Rates Impact of Proposition 209 and Initiative 200 on Business Growth Rates Procurement and Contracting Policy Responses to Ballot Measures in California, Washington, and Michigan Current Policy in Arizona, Colorado, and Nebraska – What’s at Stake? The presentation is based on the Insight Center’s state policy scan of inclusive business programs. The study examined the procurement and business development programs for small businesses owned by people of color (MBEs) and women (WBEs), looking at all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

6
The Challenge of Ballot Measures to Affirmative Procurement ProgramsJune 5, 2008Page No. 6 Proposition 209 (CA) & Initiative 200 (WA) California’s Proposition 209 passed on Nov. 5, 1996, 54% of vote “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” Washington’s Initiative 200 passed in November (Identical wording)

7
The Challenge of Ballot Measures to Affirmative Procurement ProgramsJune 5, 2008Page No. 7 Impact of Proposition 209 and Initiative 200 on Self-Employment In California, Proposition 209 led to increased self-employment among all minority groups and women. This was especially true in the Construction sector. This may have been caused by decreasing opportunities in both the public and private labor market due to Prop 209. The long-term trend of decreasing self-employment among African-American men was slowed somewhat by Prop 209. In Washington, Initiative 200 led to increased self-employment among all minority groups and women, except for Asian and Native American men.

8
The Challenge of Ballot Measures to Affirmative Procurement ProgramsJune 5, 2008Page No. 8 Impact of Proposition 209 and Initiative 200 on Business Growth Study of 2,720 randomly selected businesses located in California, Washington, Florida, Oregon, or Maryland. All businesses, not just those who are vendors to the state or local governments - Oregon and Maryland are the comparison group – policy neutral or policy enhanced Business growth measured by number of employees in 1996, 2001, and 2007, using Dun & Bradstreet business data - Data on 748 firms across the three data points White, male-owned firms were used as a control group - No difference in business growth rates among the five states for the control group

9
The Challenge of Ballot Measures to Affirmative Procurement ProgramsJune 5, 2008Page No. 9 Business Growth Rates of MBEs and WBEs Declined With Proposition 209 Business Growth by MBE and WBE status, California vs. Maryland and Oregon, 1996 to 2001 * Significantly lower than Maryland and Oregon (combined) at the p = 0.05 level. Note: White, male-owned businesses in California grew at the same rate as similar firms in Maryland and Oregon during the same period.

11
The Challenge of Ballot Measures to Affirmative Procurement ProgramsJune 5, 2008Page No. 11 California’s Policy Response to Proposition 209 State removed: Participation of M/WBEs in public contracts (15% for MBEs, overall; 5% for WBEs; and 3% for DVBEs) State voluntarily removed: Certification of M/WBEs Tracking procurement dollars to M/WBEs Outreach to M/WBEs

12
The Challenge of Ballot Measures to Affirmative Procurement ProgramsJune 5, 2008Page No. 12 Local Responses to Prop 209 Over a dozen local governments ended their affirmative procurement programs Los Angeles City (no change) Has a local SBE bid preference program Had an M/W/OBE program prior to Prop 209 and it continues: -Prime contractors required to have MWOBE participation on selected contracts valued over $100,000 Los Angeles County Continues to certify but has no participation expectations Community Business Enterprise (CBE) certification – includes MBEs, WBEs, DBEs, and DVBEs

13
The Challenge of Ballot Measures to Affirmative Procurement ProgramsJune 5, 2008Page No. 13 Local Responses to Prop 209 Port of Oakland Ended its M/WBE program Now has a local SBE participation goal open to all small businesses San Francisco Initially ended its M/WBE program Recently started a targeted vendor outreach program to M/WBEs, recently upheld by CA Court of Appeal Prime contractors must notify M/WBEs of sub-contracting opportunities

14
The Challenge of Ballot Measures to Affirmative Procurement ProgramsJune 5, 2008Page No. 14 Local Responses to Prop 209 California Public Utilities Commission Not bound by Prop 209 Has Utility Supplier Diversity Program All investor-owned electric, gas, water and telecommunication utility companies with gross annual revenues in excess of $25,000,000 are required to participate Voluntary procurement goals of 5% for WBEs and 15% for MBEs and 1.5% for DVBEs (disabled veterans)

15
The Challenge of Ballot Measures to Affirmative Procurement ProgramsJune 5, 2008Page No. 15 Washington Procurement Falls for Five Years

16
The Challenge of Ballot Measures to Affirmative Procurement ProgramsJune 5, 2008Page No. 16 Washington’s Response to Initiative 200 Removed: Contract participation goals The authority to reject low bidders who do not meet the M&WBE goals Price preferences or preference points based on race, gender, color, ethnicity, or national origin Consideration of race, gender, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the final selection and award of contracts or purchases Did not remove: The M&WBE program designed to increase opportunities for M&WBE firms Certification of M&WBE firms Outreach and recruitment of M&WBE firms Voluntary M&WBE purchasing and contracting goals Monitoring and reporting of the utilization of M&WBE firms Authority to identify and remove barriers to equal participation in contracting and purchasing

18
The Challenge of Ballot Measures to Affirmative Procurement ProgramsJune 5, 2008Page No. 18 Summary of Responses to State Ballot Initiatives California Dismantled all aspects including certification, procurement tracking, vendor outreach, targeted business services Washington Dismantled mandatory participation. Kept other aspects, including agency supplier diversity coordinators Florida Preemptively dismantled mandatory participation; created voluntary One Florida program Michigan Favors the Washington approach but does not have the state budget to implement it

19
The Challenge of Ballot Measures to Affirmative Procurement ProgramsJune 5, 2008Page No. 19 State Programs in Arizona, Colorado, and Nebraska Arizona For state spending, require at least one M/WBE bid on contracts under $50,000 Governor’s Equity in State Contracting Initiative established state plan to voluntarily increase M/WBE procurement Initiative created online vendor directory – Arizona Steps Up, where M/WBEs can self-identify Phoenix certifies S/M/WBEs and tracks sub-contracting. Encourages use of M/WBEs on sub-contracts with specific goals. Bid preference for all small businesses. Tucson certifies S/M/WBEs and tracks procurement. Bid preference for all small businesses on some construction bids, with smaller additional benefit for M/WBEs on certain bids.

20
The Challenge of Ballot Measures to Affirmative Procurement ProgramsJune 5, 2008Page No. 20 Colorado 2006 State/DOT Disparity Study, increased goals and procurement Based on same disparity study, Denver has established M/WBE contract participation goals The state joined Denver to attach mandatory M/WBE goals on state spending in Denver Governor recently established the Minority Business Advisory Council Online vendor directory with M/WBE self-identification

21
The Challenge of Ballot Measures to Affirmative Procurement ProgramsJune 5, 2008Page No. 21 Nebraska No M/WBE goals or certification Online vendor registry with M/WBE designation State helps finance specific business development services for women-owned businesses and for Latino-owned businesses, in Spanish Omaha certifies ‘Protected Business Enterprises’ (PBEs – M/WBEs) and proactively contracts/sub-contracts with PBEs at a level similar to industry market shares Lincoln maintains Historically Underutilized Business (HUB) directory

22
The Challenge of Ballot Measures to Affirmative Procurement ProgramsJune 5, 2008Page No. 22 For more information on State M/WBE Programs